Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by drd1135, Sep 17, 2014.
Two inches long would be a sweet little zoom in good light.
Sorry. I didn't see the "Diddy" thread. Carry on.
This should be the thread we keep. The other should be deleted and forgotten about.
Semi-tempted. Though I find f/5.6 at 100mm very slow. Definitely a daytime only lens!
I am curious about the lens simply because I'm a bit underwhelmed by the slow telephoto options available so far for landscape use. And it is really small. If it ends up being optically as good as the 12-32 it could be very interesting.
Jordan Steele (admiringlight.com) is at the show and handled the 35-100 though he couldn't take any sample photos with it. Write up on this page:
At this point my best guess is that IQ wise it won't be any better than the 45-150 or 45-175 (which are certainly not bad lenses at all) but will just be really small. When paired with the GM1/GM5 could make a very interesting super small kit. GM1+12-32+35-100+9/8BC+15/1.7+45/1.8 would all fit in a few pockets!
For me it will hinge on the IQ though - it will have to be wart free at F/6.3 at all focal lengths for me to be interested. Fingers crossed.
If it perform performs anything like the 45-150 I'm all over it.
Still, lots of older (and cheaper) 70-200 FF lenses went from 3.5 to 5.6.
Even in FF those were daytime only lenses.
For me, at that f-stop I'd rather forgo the normal zoom and this tele zoom for the panasonic 14-140 ii. I don't have it (yet) but from the looks of it, it seems not much bigger then the old 14-42 kit lens. If it's going to be slow anyhow might as well superzoom it and stitch panoramas for those times you need to go wide.
True. :smile: That's what IS is for.
It is small, but I don't normally carry a lens that long for everyday or travel use. If I am going to use a longer lens then the f-stop is going to be more important than the size or weight. It does not fit a need for me.
I have placed a pre order for it for some of my uses it is an ideal lens and I tend to use a tripod if shooting in low light as I still want to stop down.
It is very intriguing to pair with my GM1. I do think it was a good idea for Panasonic. I love the 12-32 and it's hard to believe this is scarcely bigger than it is.
As noted earlier, the IQ will have to be great though - otherwise there is no way it's worth the $400.
But the biggest reason why I probably won't buy it - I recently took a big trip with the 12-32, 100-300, and 45 1.8, and I never once missed having a zoom in that 32-100 range.
I haven't heard much about it really. I like the range and size for sure and that is my sweet spot for Focal lengths. If $400 is the price, I'll have to wait and see what the IQ is like. It will have to blow away the 40-150 to be worth that IMO. I guess that includes the $100 Panasonic "premium". They depreciate faster/more than Olympus lenses, because of that.
The Panasonic premium covers you for the lens hood that Olympus otherwise offers as an 'optional extra' and makes people pay $50 for
If the 35-100 'mini' as as good as the 12-32 then it'll be a pretty good lens.
Hands on and samples:
You mean that big ugly plastic square thing that came with my PL 25mm 1.4 that doesn't reverse?
The funny part is the the other thread used "diddy" whereas I used "baby". Both titles were equally vague. For some reason "baby" caused no confusion.
I'm more than happy with the Olympus 40-150/4-5.6 IQ. I can see this being an attractive alternative to those who like OIS better or have a Panasonic body without IBIS.
I'm quite happy with the 40-150 too, but this is about half the size and combined with the 12-32 makes for an even tighter set for my gx7.
Separate names with a comma.